Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, September 05, 2018

OTP 2018 September 4: Candidate for governor pitches politics at Jacksonville baseball game

The Democratic candidate for governor spent his Labor Day in Jacksonville and attended a Jumbo Shrimp game at the baseball grounds.

Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum called for his Republican opponent, Ron DeSantis, to have a more civil campaign, but New4Jax political analyst Rick Mullaney doesn’t think the political attacks will slow down.

 

(As always, views expressed in the article lede and comments are the views of the individual commenters and the submitter of the article and do not represent the views of Baseball Think Factory or its owner.)

Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 05, 2018 at 08:26 AM | 1496 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: off topic, politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 14 of 15 pages ‹ First  < 12 13 14 15 > 
   1301. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: September 10, 2018 at 02:20 PM (#5741631)
   1302. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 10, 2018 at 02:26 PM (#5741634)
Seems worth noting - Blue Collar Job Growth At Fastest Rate Since 1984:
Blue-collar jobs are growing at their fastest rate in more than 30 years, helping fuel a hiring boom in many small towns and rural areas that are strong supporters of President Trump ahead of November's midterm elections. Jobs in goods-producing industries — mining, construction and manufacturing — grew 3.3 percent in the year preceding July, the best rate since 1984, according to a Washington Post analysis.
. . .
The rapid hiring in blue-collar sectors is delivering benefits to areas that turned out heavily for Trump in the 2016 election, according to the Brookings Institution, a shift from earlier in this expansion, when large and midsize cities experienced most of the gains. The biggest drivers of the blue-collar hiring surge are the rebound in oil prices, the need to rebuild after disasters such as Hurricanes Irma and Harvey, and rising demand generated by a growing economy.
. . .
Rural employment grew at an annualized rate of 5.1 percent in the first quarter. Smaller metro areas grew 5 percent. That's significantly larger than the 4.1 percent growth seen in large urban areas that recovered earlier from the Great Recession, according to an analysis by the Brookings Institution’s Metropolitan Policy Program of a separate set of Labor Department data released Wednesday.

More at link.
   1303. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 10, 2018 at 02:39 PM (#5741640)

By contrast, DeSantis attended---and said it was an "honor" to attend---at least four separate meetings where the express purpose of the meeting was to promote white nationalism.
Question for the New Year: Does Andy (a) not know what white nationalism is, or (b) not know what the word "express" means?
   1304. Don August(us) Cesar Geronimo Berroa Posted: September 10, 2018 at 02:42 PM (#5741644)
the need to rebuild after disasters such as Hurricanes Irma and Harvey


And, it looks like more good news is on the way for blue-collar hiring, as Hurricane Florence is set to destroy the Carolinas on Friday! MAGA!
   1305. This is going to be state of the art wall Posted: September 10, 2018 at 02:43 PM (#5741645)
The biggest drivers of the blue-collar hiring surge are the rebound in oil prices, the need to rebuild after disasters such as Hurricanes Irma and Harvey, and rising demand generated by a growing economy.
. . .


Thanks Trump. What happened to drill baby drill? Or does the POTUS not really control the price of energy to any meaningful short term metric? The intellectual underpinnings of the GOP are shaky, to say the least. In fact, an observer might say it's mostly just meaningless propaganda.
   1306. The usual palaver and twaddle (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: September 10, 2018 at 02:45 PM (#5741646)
1294

Nancy Soderberg (D) vs Michael Waltz (R)

538 says its "lean R" and rates it a 71% chance of staying Republican.


Until Waltz wakes up with Khartoum's head in his bed, that is...
   1307. The usual palaver and twaddle (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: September 10, 2018 at 02:49 PM (#5741648)
The intellectual underpinnings of the GOP are shaky, to say the least. In fact, an observer might say it's mostly just meaningless propaganda.


Right. Like they care...
   1308. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 10, 2018 at 02:51 PM (#5741649)

Wasnt Sasse the libertarian psychopath who introduced the one-sentence bill to abolish the Department of Education, or am I confusing my tea partiers?
There are so many things wrong with that single sentence that I wouldn't know where to begin -- but ignoring every single one of the false premises, I don't believe Sasse introduced such a bill, no. You are confusing him with Congressman Massie, who did introduce such a one-sentence bill and is libertarian, but obviously therefore the opposite of a socialist psychopath.
   1309. DavidFoss Posted: September 10, 2018 at 02:59 PM (#5741653)
The biggest drivers of the blue-collar hiring surge...

... just keep taking derivatives until the number goes positive. If you look at the graph from the article of the derivative, all the blue collar dips are severe and are not counterbalanced by spikes during expansions. Blue collar employment has still not recovered from the 2007-2008 recession. Of course, Clapper didn't paste that excerpt from the article.
   1310. Traderdave Posted: September 10, 2018 at 03:05 PM (#5741655)
Blue collar employment hasn't recovered from the '00-01 recession, which while rather mild nationally, hit manufacturing in the Midwest and South very hard.

And -- BY FAR -- the primary for jobs growth under both Obama and Il Duce has been ZIRP, which is now either A) over or B) transitioned to LIRP, depending on one's belief. Neither man can take more than a sliver of partial credit. The main way a President "creates" jobs is by not ####### up willfully. Trump is doing his best with his dumbass mercantilist obsession with trade balances, though.






   1311. PepTech, the Legendary Posted: September 10, 2018 at 03:13 PM (#5741658)
Guest Apologist Kevin Hassett, brought in to give Sanders a little more time to breath into a paper bag, tosses out this one:
At a briefing with reporters Monday, Kevin Hassett, chairman of Trump's Council of Economic Advisors, conceded that Trump's claim was not true.

"From the initial fact to what the president said … I don't know the whole chain of command," he said. "What is true it is that it's the highest in 10 years. At some point somebody probably conveyed it to him adding a zero to that, and they shouldn't have done that."
Mmm-hmm. Meanwhile, despite massive debunking, the tweet is still up, eight hours after the fact. I guess Clapper's vaunted calls for corrections don't apply to Trump. But let's hear more about Booker!

In other news, Sanders spends a good five minutes talking about how wonderful it is that the Supreme Despot said more nice things about Big Orange. It's bad enough that any POTUS brags about anything, but bragging about exactly how this one bruised his uvula is extra sad.
   1312. zenbitz Posted: September 10, 2018 at 03:21 PM (#5741663)
He's just as poor a communicator, as poor a reader, and has the same authoritarian instincts - look at how he gobbles Tom Friedman's balls every time the latter praises how China gets things done


I think this is unfair - but even granting this borderline slander as truth... The one thing Andy is -- that Trump isn't and will never be -- is a reasonable honest (sorry copyright law!) and forthright citizen. Like, if you won a bet with Andy, the dude would pay you.
   1313. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 10, 2018 at 03:24 PM (#5741664)

“As long as he’s here, I’m here.”

— House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), telling CNN she won’t retire until Donald Trump is no longer president.
   1314. PepTech, the Legendary Posted: September 10, 2018 at 03:28 PM (#5741669)
“As long as he’s here, I’m here.”

— House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), telling CNN she won’t retire until Donald Trump is no longer president.
This definitely falls under the category of "Democrats saying stupid things." Go away, Pelosi, you're part of the problem, not the solution.
   1315. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 10, 2018 at 03:32 PM (#5741672)
This definitely falls under the category of "Democrats saying stupid things." Go away, Pelosi, you're part of the problem, not the solution.


Meh, whatever. I think it is funny and there is no real evidence that Pelosi is any more a drag on the Democrats than the Next Scary Liberal will be (plus she is a tremendous tactician and strategist).

Besides she might just be trying to bribe the few sane Republicans left ... "you want to get rid of me that bad? Get rid of Trump and I am gone!"
   1316. BDC Posted: September 10, 2018 at 03:37 PM (#5741674)
“As long as he’s here, I’m here.”

— House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi


This is like Mitch Moreland reassuring Boston fans that as long as the Yankees have Aaron Judge, he'll always be the Red Sox' first baseman.
   1317. PepTech, the Legendary Posted: September 10, 2018 at 03:38 PM (#5741675)
"you want to get rid of me that bad? Get rid of Trump and I am gone!"
OK, *that* would be funny :)
   1318. This is going to be state of the art wall Posted: September 10, 2018 at 03:43 PM (#5741676)
This definitely falls under the category of "Democrats saying stupid things." Go away, Pelosi, you're part of the problem, not the solution.


As I've said repeatedly it's time for new blood all around at the head of the Democratic party. I get wanting to stick around for what should be a speaker position, but everytime she says something like that that becomes less likely. I'd say Pelosi is going to drive GOP voters to the polls as much as any of their local congressional candidates.

(plus she is a tremendous tactician and strategist)


lolwut?
   1319. DJS, the Digital Dandy Posted: September 10, 2018 at 03:44 PM (#5741677)
The one thing Andy is -- that Trump isn't and will never be -- is a reasonable honest (sorry copyright law!) and forthright citizen. Like, if you won a bet with Andy, the dude would pay you.

Yeah, but Jolly tries to make the bet as dishonest as possible. Like all his pre-bet caveats that would cancel the presidential bet or the comical odds he gives once finally pinned down to an agreement. If Jolly ran a casino, the roulette wheel would have ten zeroes.
   1320. DJS, the Digital Dandy Posted: September 10, 2018 at 03:47 PM (#5741678)
And guys, while I don't like Jolly, did he say it was OK to say his first name? He may be BTF's Murray Chass, but I at least want to observe that bit of decorum, if it's relevant.
   1321. DJS, the Digital Dandy Posted: September 10, 2018 at 03:49 PM (#5741679)
Question for the New Year: Does Andy (a) not know what white nationalism is, or (b) not know what the word "express" means?

Jolly read it in a trusted scholarly review or at least had his guardian read it to him.
   1322. This is going to be state of the art wall Posted: September 10, 2018 at 03:49 PM (#5741680)
I really don't know why you guys gang up on Andy so much. He's an erudite guy with strong opinions and a pretty productive keyboard. Sure some of his opinions land on the "haha silly head in the clouds city liberal" but I'd sure as hell rather land on those opinions than any on the GOP's side of the aisle these days.
   1323. McCoy Posted: September 10, 2018 at 03:52 PM (#5741681)
Really weird to say that what Pelosi said is stupid. I'm pretty sure Peptech would have said any quote by Pelosi was stupid but as it is the statement doesn't really make sense in regards to what is quoted. What is so stupid in saying that as long as the crazy idiot is in charge of the federal government and a major party I'm going to stick around and fight him?
   1324. This is going to be state of the art wall Posted: September 10, 2018 at 03:56 PM (#5741684)
Really weird to say that what Pelosi said is stupid. I'm pretty sure Peptech would have said any quote by Pelosi was stupid but as it is the statement doesn't really make sense in regards to what is quoted. What is so stupid in saying that as long as the crazy idiot is in charge of the federal government and a major party I'm going to stick around and fight him?


Because no independent voter GAF about Nancy Pelosi's "resistance". In fact, I'd hazard a guess 50% of registered Dems don't as well. She's trying to position herself here as some selfless martyr for her party and running on opposition to Trump is short sighted at best and completely alienating to many registered Dems at worst. They want to hear more than just "I'm against Trump".
   1325. zenbitz Posted: September 10, 2018 at 03:56 PM (#5741685)
DJS - Yeah, I thought he was fine with using his real first name. But just to quibble setting up favorable odds on your bets is literally the essence of capitalism. No one is forcing you to take the bet... at gun point!
   1326. McCoy Posted: September 10, 2018 at 04:01 PM (#5741688)
Re 1324. I'm not sure what that post is supposed to accomplish, prove, or explain. It's a 7 word tweet not the Bible nor the declaration of Independence. Acting like it is the only piece of information anyone is ever going to use to judge Pelosi. It's like the daily cheerleading or catcalling of poll results. It's essentially laundry cheerleading. Useless, pointless and usually stupid.
   1327. Hot Wheeling American, MS-13 Enthusiast Posted: September 10, 2018 at 04:02 PM (#5741689)
@mattgertz:
The Daily Caller has published an article theorizing that the Anonymous op-ed in the NYT is "a hoax, concocted within" the paper.

Author is a "forensic psychologist." The evidence is a set of bullet points detailing "the Left’s constant hoaxes, lies and fake news."

That's it.
   1328. PreservedFish Posted: September 10, 2018 at 04:04 PM (#5741692)
Isn't libertarianism clearly the most psychopathic American political leaning? "Antisocial behavior, impaired empathy and remorse, and bold, disinhibited, and egotistical traits." This is like the libertarian credo for chrissakes! I mean, it's neighborly of them that they want everyone to have the right to be as antisocial, disinhibited and egotistical as they are, but come on.
   1329. Zonk is a Doppleclapper Posted: September 10, 2018 at 04:04 PM (#5741693)
They want to hear more than just "I'm against Trump".


That would make Democrats better than the Trumpkins and even the not Trumpkins -- who generally don't give two shits about anything other than "I'm against the people who are against Trump!"

...Except David, I guess.
   1330. This is going to be state of the art wall Posted: September 10, 2018 at 04:05 PM (#5741694)
Re 1324. I'm not sure what that post is supposed to accomplish, prove, or explain. It's a 7 word tweet not the Bible nor the declaration of Independence. Acting like it is the only piece of information anyone is ever going to use to judge Pelosi. It's like the daily cheerleading or catcalling of poll results. It's essentially laundry cheerleading. Useless, pointless and usually stupid.


Because I'm right?

The poll, conducted from June 1- 13, shows Pelosi, the House minority leader, has a favorability rating of just 29 percent among voters overall, marking a 5 point drop from the last time the poll was conducted in 2016.

Meanwhile, 53 percent say they do not support her.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is also struggling to appeal to the American electorate, with just 24 percent of voters favoring the Republican from Kentucky and 50 percent of participants saying they dislike him. He has historically had low approval ratings from voters.

The poll comes as the midterm elections are heating up.

Nancy Pelosi is campaigning hard for Democrats in an effort to win a majority in the House of Representatives during the midterm elections. The former speaker of the House is also lobbying to regain the speaker's gavel if Democrats retake the House in November. There are at least 20 House Democratic nominees who have said publicly that they will not back her for speaker if they do win the majority.

Among Democrats, 55 percent saw her favorably, matching the lowest rating recorded among her own party's voters in 2009, Gallup reports.


Pelosi is part of the Dems' image problem: too old, too entrenched, and too neo-liberal.
   1331. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: September 10, 2018 at 04:07 PM (#5741696)
1308- oh come on. Massie, Sasse, that’s understandable!
   1332. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 10, 2018 at 04:08 PM (#5741697)
(plus she is a tremendous tactician and strategist)


lolwut?


Yes, really. She is a great strategist and tactician. She is a great politician, like no kidding, which most people understand even when they don't like or agree with her. But sure, feel free to disagree with such subtle and nuanced logic and such hard cold facts.
   1333. McCoy Posted: September 10, 2018 at 04:08 PM (#5741698)
Every leader of the Dem party of the last 50 odd years is part of the Dems image problem and the same applies to the Republicans. It's a meaningless point. Each side demonizes the other and if you hang out by the side of the river long enough, unlike Sun Tzu's teachings, your body will become the bloated carcass floating down the river.
   1334. This is going to be state of the art wall Posted: September 10, 2018 at 04:10 PM (#5741699)
Each side demonizes the other and if you hang out by the side of the river long enough, unlike Sun Tzu's teaching, your body will become the bloated carcass floating down the river.


Odd you'd finish my argument for me. If you'd RTFA you'd see that not even Mitch McConnell is viewed as poorly as Nancy. Guess some carcasses bloat faster than others.

Yes, really. She is a great strategist and tactician. She is a great politician, like no kidding, which most people understand even when they don't like or agree with her. But sure, feel free to disagree with such subtle and nuanced logic and such hard cold facts.


Dems are in the wilderness and the leader of the House caucus is a "brilliant tactician and strategist". It is to laugh. Do not believe what you are reading and seeing!
   1335. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 10, 2018 at 04:11 PM (#5741700)
By contrast, DeSantis attended---and said it was an "honor" to attend---at least four separate meetings where the express purpose of the meeting was to promote white nationalism.

Question for the New Year: Does Andy (a) not know what white nationalism is, or (b) not know what the word "express" means?


Question for anyone: Does David (a) think there's any substantive difference between white nationalism and the xenophobic/Eurocentric/racebaiting/Muslimbaiting sort of garbage that the speakers at those Restoration Weekend are promoting, or (b) not know what Steve Bannon, Milo Yiannopoulos and Sebastian Gorka represent? (HINT: It's nothing that any self-respecting New Year's celebrant would want to defend.)

   1336. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 10, 2018 at 04:12 PM (#5741701)
Because I'm right?


Well you were right when you said no one cared, but wrong in your own understanding.

No one is voting for a Republican because "OMG! Nancy Pelosi!" and no one is doing the reverse. Not every communication is aimed at winning votes, especially since basically no one votes based on who the Speaker of the House might be - "I was going to vote Democrat when I thought the Speaker might be a generic evil liberal, but knowing it is Nancy Pelosi means I am totally voting GOP this year!" (Said no one, ever)
   1337. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 10, 2018 at 04:13 PM (#5741702)
Dems are in the wilderness and the leader of the House caucus is a "brilliant tactician and strategist". It is to laugh. Do not believe what you are reading and seeing!


So Pelosi is blamed for what now? Is she "responsible" for House elections only, or are you also blaming her for Trump, Pence, Senate races, Governors race, state House and Senate races, dogcatcher races...
   1338. PepTech, the Legendary Posted: September 10, 2018 at 04:16 PM (#5741703)
Yes, really. She is a great strategist and tactician. She is a great politician, like no kidding, which most people understand even when they don't like or agree with her.
I believe this was true a decade ago. Kind of reminds me how I would have happily voted McCain in 2000, but wouldn't have considered it (even *before* Palin) in 2008.

Any value Pelosi brings to the table is nullified, and then some, by her galvanizing effect on the opposing side (as has been noted above). She should realize that (IMO) stepping aside and endorsing the right next-gen party leader^ would have far more effect against Trump. Put another way, anyone voting *because of Pelosi* is already a solid D; if she still has the savvy of old she should see the upside of getting out of the way.

^ Assuming they can find one...
   1339. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 10, 2018 at 04:16 PM (#5741704)
I really don't know why you guys gang up on Andy so much.

Let's just say I'm almost as honored to be on certain Primates' enemies lists** as DeSantis was honored to attend those Restoration Weekend conferences.

** Even if I know they're not really my enemies, but only people with a noticeable lack of humor.
   1340. McCoy Posted: September 10, 2018 at 04:18 PM (#5741706)
Like I said laundry cheerleading. It's beyond silly to think your point was proved because Nancy is more unpopular than Mitch. The horror.
   1341. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: September 10, 2018 at 04:18 PM (#5741707)
Latest Trump approval poll 58% - 36% against.
   1342. This is going to be state of the art wall Posted: September 10, 2018 at 04:19 PM (#5741708)
So Pelosi is blamed for what now? Is she "responsible" for House elections only, or are you also blaming her for Trump, Pence, Senate races, Governors race, state House and Senate races, dogcatcher races...


It's illustrative that you and McCoy can't bring a single data point to the table backing up the assertion that she's a net positive for the Dems and instead we have McCoy with the incredibly naive "not every communication is used to win votes" defense. Well, next time she says something stupid I'll remember that.

To be fair, not even the clueless Pelosi can probably screw up this midterm. Tide's coming in one way or another.

And Mouse: only the truly brilliant politician and tactician Barrack Obama led the Dems out.

Like I said laundry cheerleading. It's beyond silly to think your point was proved because Nancy is more unpopular than Mitch. The horror.


JFC RTFA her negatives among indies are WORSE than Mitch's. Has nothing to do with "laundry". You're just salty your argument had no weight.
   1343. DavidFoss Posted: September 10, 2018 at 04:20 PM (#5741709)
Dems are in the wilderness and the leader of the House caucus is a "brilliant tactician and strategist". It is to laugh. Do not believe what you are reading and seeing!

The parliamentary role of a speaker is to herd a diverse caucus full of members from purple districts, count votes and get bills past. She's really good at this.

She is not the type of person to get those purple seats into her caucus. Even in 2006, that was Rahm Emanuel's job to do this. Pelosi shouldn't be trading sound bites with people on sunday morning talk shows. She's not very good at this at all. Being the speaker and becoming the speaker are completely different tasks.
   1344. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 10, 2018 at 04:21 PM (#5741710)
Any value Pelosi brings to the table is nullified, and then some, by her galvanizing effect on the opposing side


Yeah, because the GOP sure won't o after whoever comes after her, no way, no sir. Once she is gone the GOP won't have anyone to attack and will totally be forced to campaign on the merits of issues and not scare tactics.

/snark


Seriously, the next person in line will get painted by the Evil Liberal brush just as she has and will end up just as galvanizing - which is to say not very. They - like her - will feature in some fundraising emails and will be a convenient target for animus, but won't move any votes anywhere in any election.
   1345. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 10, 2018 at 04:21 PM (#5741712)
Any value Pelosi brings to the table is nullified, and then some, by her galvanizing effect on the opposing side (as has been noted above). She should realize that (IMO) stepping aside and endorsing the right next-gen party leader^ would have far more effect against Trump. Put another way, anyone voting *because of Pelosi* is already a solid D; if she still has the savvy of old she should see the upside of getting out of the way.

Nancy Pelosi was a terrific Speaker when she had the votes. Who was the last minority leader who accomplished anything?

I wish she'd step down and make room for fresh blood, but for that reason alone, and not because of anything particular she's done wrong, or because she won't be invited to Donald Trump's funeral.
   1346. McCoy Posted: September 10, 2018 at 04:22 PM (#5741714)
Anyone that gets to the top "galvanizes" the opposition. It is beyond stupid for one to actually care about that and make decisions on that. The next Dem leader will somehow mysteriously galvanize the opposition for the 100th straight year. We'll be agog at how this rare and mythical event happens without Nancy Pelosi but it will still happen.
   1347. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 10, 2018 at 04:23 PM (#5741715)
Anyone that gets to the top "galvanizes" the opposition. It is beyond stupid for one to actually care about that and make decisions on that. The next Dem leader will somehow mysteriously galvanize the opposition for the 100th straight year. We'll be agog at how this rare and mythical event happens without Nancy Pelosi but it will still happen.

This.
   1348. zenbitz Posted: September 10, 2018 at 04:23 PM (#5741716)
Is this where I point out that Pelosi is my congressional rep... and I've never ever voted for her?
   1349. McCoy Posted: September 10, 2018 at 04:23 PM (#5741717)
Clearly Trump should step down for the good of the party. Doesn't he know that he's galvanized the opposition?
   1350. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 10, 2018 at 04:24 PM (#5741718)
I think it is funny and there is no real evidence that Pelosi is any more a drag on the Democrats than the Next Scary Liberal

This seems like evidence - Pelosi's Favorable/Unfavorable Rating Is Worse Than Trump's. She's currently at 28.6% Favorable, 48.7% Unfavorable, a -20.1% gap. Looking at the chart at the link, it appears that has been steady for quite some time. But maybe Bitter Mouse is right and other House Democrats are even more unpopular.

So, to take Pelosi's statement at face value, if Trump runs again, so will she at age 80, and if he wins, she'll lead House Democrats at least until she's 84.
Besides she might just be trying to bribe the few sane Republicans left ... "you want to get rid of me that bad? Get rid of Trump and I am gone!"

The careful observer will note that Pelosi didn't say that part of the formulation.
   1351. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 10, 2018 at 04:24 PM (#5741719)
It's illustrative that you and McCoy can't bring a single data point to the table backing up the assertion that she's a net positive for the Dems and instead we have McCoy with the incredibly naive "not every communication is used to win votes" defense. Well, next time she says something stupid I'll remember that.

To be fair, not even the clueless Pelosi can probably screw up this midterm. Tide's coming in one way or another.

And Mouse: only the truly brilliant politician and tactician Barrack Obama led the Dems out.


Well done genius. It wasn't McCoy that wrote that, it was me. And I can't help but notice you didn't answer the question, what elections are you blaming on Pelosi and what evidence do you have?

Yes she does poorly in polls, but she wasn't the one being voted on (except her own election, of course), and there are millions of things that poll strongly and don't influence vote results, as everyone not a Genius like you realizes.
   1352. Don August(us) Cesar Geronimo Berroa Posted: September 10, 2018 at 04:27 PM (#5741721)
Is this where I point out that Pelosi is my congressional rep... and I've never ever voted for her?


Eh, John Boehner was my Rep for the longest time. I never voted for him. Even when the Dems didn't run anyone against him (it is that red of a district). I did, however, write-in myself one year.
   1353. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: September 10, 2018 at 04:28 PM (#5741722)
This seems like evidence - Pelosi's Favorable/Unfavorable Rating Is Worse Than Trump's. She's currently at 28.6% Favorable, 48.7% Unfavorable, a -20.1% gap. Looking at the chart at the link, it appears that has been steady for quite some time.


Seems odd to compare a congressman's national approval rating to that of the President. Everyone of those polled is the president's constituency, while very few of them are the congressman's. Does it really matter what someone in West Virginia or Rhode Island thinks of a California congressman?
   1354. McCoy Posted: September 10, 2018 at 04:30 PM (#5741724)
Re 1342. No it's a stupid point. Nancy has and is going to win her district handidly. No one or virtually no one is going to vote in say the Indiana second district based on whether or not Pelosi is the top Dem. If she retires tomorrow the negative ads and feelings don't go away. The GOP just picks a new target and the base picks someone else to be the embodiment of the evil left.
   1355. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: September 10, 2018 at 04:31 PM (#5741725)
So, to take Pelosi's statement at face value, if Trump runs again, so will she at age 80, and if he wins, she'll lead House Democrats at least until she's 84.


Left unsaid is that Trump will be 74 and 78. An 84 YO congressman gives you the vapors, but a 78 YO President is just fine?
   1356. PreservedFish Posted: September 10, 2018 at 04:31 PM (#5741726)
Anyone that gets to the top "galvanizes" the opposition. It is beyond stupid for one to actually care about that and make decisions on that. The next Dem leader will somehow mysteriously galvanize the opposition for the 100th straight year. We'll be agog at how this rare and mythical event happens without Nancy Pelosi but it will still happen.


I'm shocked that this was written so soon after the last presidential election.
   1357. bobm Posted: September 10, 2018 at 04:32 PM (#5741728)
[1240]

"C.I.A. Drone Mission, Curtailed by Obama, Is Expanded in Africa Under Trump"

No president is going to give up these powers without a fight, from either side. It's disheartening. That said, who originally expanded the C.I.A. drone mission which Obama "curtailed"? When was the Defense Dept. drone mission "curtailed"?

 U.S. government runs two drone programs. The military’s version, which is publicly acknowledged, operates in the recognized war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq, and targets enemies of U.S. troops stationed there. As such, it is an extension of conventional warfare. The C.I.A.’s program is aimed at terror suspects around the world, including in countries where U.S. troops are not based. It was initiated by the Bush Administration and, according to Juan Zarate, a counterterrorism adviser in the Bush White House, Obama has left in place virtually all the key personnel. The program is classified as covert, and the intelligence agency declines to provide any information to the public about where it operates, how it selects targets, who is in charge, or how many people have been killed. [...]

Since then, the C.I.A. bombardments have continued at a rapid pace. According to a just completed study by the New America Foundation, the number of drone strikes has risen dramatically since Obama became President. During his first nine and a half months in office, he has authorized as many C.I.A. aerial attacks in Pakistan as George W. Bush did in his final three years in office. The study’s authors, Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedemann, report that the Obama Administration has sanctioned at least forty-one C.I.A. missile strikes in Pakistan since taking office—a rate of approximately one bombing a week. So far this year, various estimates suggest, the C.I.A. attacks have killed between three hundred and twenty-six and five hundred and thirty-eight people. Critics say that many of the victims have been innocent bystanders, including children. [...]

General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, the defense contractor that manufactures the Predator and its more heavily armed sibling, the Reaper, can barely keep up with the government’s demand. The Air Force’s fleet has grown from some fifty drones in 2001 to nearly two hundred; the C.I.A. will not divulge how many drones it operates. [...]

At first, some intelligence experts were uneasy about drone attacks. In 2002, Jeffrey Smith, a former C.I.A. general counsel, told Seymour M. Hersh, for an article in this magazine, “If they’re dead, they’re not talking to you, and you create more martyrs.” And, in an interview with the Washington Post, Smith said that ongoing drone attacks could “suggest that it’s acceptable behavior to assassinate people. . . . Assassination as a norm of international conduct exposes American leaders and Americans overseas.”

Seven years later, there is no longer any doubt that targeted killing has become official U.S. policy. “The things we were complaining about from Israel a few years ago we now embrace,” Solis says. Now, he notes, nobody in the government calls it assassination. [...]


The New Yorker - The Predator War by Jane Mayer -October 19, 2009
   1358. Shredder Posted: September 10, 2018 at 04:33 PM (#5741729)
Odd you'd finish my argument for me. If you'd RTFA you'd see that not even Mitch McConnell is viewed as poorly as Nancy. Guess some carcasses bloat faster than others.
I didn't RTFA, but I RTF part that you quoted, showing McConnel at -26% approval, and Pelosi at -24%. Tell me again how he isn't viewed as poorly as Pelosi?
Any value Pelosi brings to the table is nullified, and then some, by her galvanizing effect on the opposing side (as has been noted above).
And this is just lazy analysis with nothing to back it up. It's the same lazy analysis that led people to say things like "Kerry shouldn't have talked about his military service, because that made the Republicans demonize him," as if they weren't going to already. It's already been said a bunch of times, but if weren't Pelosi, it would be someone else "galvanizing" the opposition. Seriously, Peptech, you're smart enough to understand this. If anything, she's been so demonized by the right, she now serves as a pretty good foil for centrist Democrats to run against, in some ways neutralizing that argument.
   1359. DavidFoss Posted: September 10, 2018 at 04:33 PM (#5741730)
So, to take Pelosi's statement at face value, if Trump runs again, so will she at age 80, and if he wins, she'll lead House Democrats at least until she's 84.

One of her best skills as speaker is knowing how to count votes. If her caucus wants a different floor leader, she'll step down.
   1360. DavidFoss Posted: September 10, 2018 at 04:35 PM (#5741732)
The GOP just picks a new target and the base picks someone else to be the embodiment of the evil left.

Exactly. They're already doing this with AOC and she's not even in office yet.
   1361. McCoy Posted: September 10, 2018 at 04:36 PM (#5741734)
I like the whole "who expanded" part. Not who started it. A very fine whatboutism even though the original point was asking about what would all the people who attacked Obama say now that Trump is doing it. Apparently the answer is what about Obama.
   1362. PreservedFish Posted: September 10, 2018 at 04:39 PM (#5741736)
It's already been said a bunch of times, but if weren't Pelosi, it would be someone else "galvanizing" the opposition.

The GOP just picks a new target and the base picks someone else to be the embodiment of the evil left.


This is so reductive.

The new Leader would not, overnight, win a 24% approval rating.

The Republican "base" is not the only voting bloc.

It takes time for the opposition propaganda arm to sell its next bogeyman, and it takes time for the newfound revulsion to transfer from the Limbaugh listeners to the less politically active, and to the swing voters.

The idea that all Democrats would necessarily have an identical effect is just bizarre.
   1363. Shredder Posted: September 10, 2018 at 04:40 PM (#5741738)
No one or virtually no one is going to vote in say the Indiana second district based on whether or not Pelosi is the top Dem.
Or more likely, no one in Indiana is going to say "Gee, my politics line up almost perfectly with the Dem nominee in my district, and he/she is a much better person to represent me than the Republican opponent, but because of that damn Nancy Pelosi, looks like I'm voting R again."

I'd venture to guess that almost none of the Pelosi haters in the electorate know a thing about her aside from woman, Democrat, San Francisco. That combination is pretty damn easy to stigmatize in bumblefuck biblestan.
Exactly. They're already doing this with AOC and she's not even in office yet.
Even easier to do this with woman, brown, Socialist!, New York.
   1364. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: September 10, 2018 at 04:41 PM (#5741739)
It's already been said a bunch of times, but if weren't Pelosi, it would be someone else "galvanizing" the opposition.


They've already shifted from "we only voted for Trump because of Hillary Clinton" to "the reason Trump won was Barack Obama." It's all a lie from the very start, precisely identical to Jason's always disingenuous bullshit about how he would have voted for Joe Biden. They lie. Every goddamned one of them.
   1365. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: September 10, 2018 at 04:42 PM (#5741740)
Or more likely, no one in Indiana is going to say "Gee, my politics line up almost perfectly with the Dem nominee in my district, and he/she is a much better person to represent me than the Republican opponent, but because of that damn Nancy Pelosi, looks like I'm voting R again."


Pelosi is nothing but an attempted GOTV campaign to scare the geriatrics and Nazis.
   1366. DavidFoss Posted: September 10, 2018 at 04:42 PM (#5741742)
They've already shifted from "we only voted for Trump because of Hillary Clinton" to "the reason Trump won was Barack Obama." It's all a lie from the very start, precisely identical to Jason's always disingenuous bullshit about how he would have voted for Joe Biden. They lie. Every goddamned one of them.

They won't take ownership for the people they've elected. They just want to own the libs.
   1367. PreservedFish Posted: September 10, 2018 at 04:43 PM (#5741743)
eh
   1368. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 10, 2018 at 04:47 PM (#5741747)
One of her best skills as speaker is knowing how to count votes. If her caucus wants a different floor leader, she'll step down.

When the Democrats took over the House after the 2006 election, Pelosi attempted to purge long-time rival Steny Hoyer from his leadership position, backing near-crook John Murtha for House Majority Leader. He lost 149-86. Pelosi & Hoyer have also had proxy battles over various Committee leadership positions, and she's lost some of those, too. Her vaunted vote counting doesn't seem to work as well for secret ballot Party contests.
   1369. PepTech, the Legendary Posted: September 10, 2018 at 04:48 PM (#5741748)
It's already been said a bunch of times, but if weren't Pelosi, it would be someone else "galvanizing" the opposition. Seriously, Peptech, you're smart enough to understand this.
Shredder, you of all people should know that I'm not that smart, I just pretend to be, on teh interwebs.

I believe that Trump goading his masses about Swamp Creature Pelosi is going to cause the kneejerk response he's looking for. If it were a new and different name, at least *some* people, hopefully, would think before agreeing.
   1370. Srul Itza Posted: September 10, 2018 at 04:48 PM (#5741749)
libertarian . . .obviously therefore the opposite of a . . . psychopath.


Libertarians put no stock in the feelings of others, are almost wholly lacking in empathy, and consider that the only relevant metric is what is good for them.

Psychopaths . . .
   1371. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: September 10, 2018 at 04:50 PM (#5741751)
More sociopaths, really.
   1372. Chicago Joe Posted: September 10, 2018 at 04:50 PM (#5741752)
Nah, my main trigger is a few people here who spent a decade trying to derail threads with their personal politics, combined with my regret about not simply banning Jolly, Retardo, Backlasher, and Kevin in 2004-2006 or so.


Then again, the site was more fun before you lost your ####, forced the nuking of a thread, and gave us our more boring, more balkanized and less-trafficked BBTF.
   1373. Shredder Posted: September 10, 2018 at 04:51 PM (#5741754)
The idea that all Democrats would necessarily have an identical effect is just bizarre.
But it's not all Democrats. It only needs to be one Democrat. And that Democrat doesn't even need to be SotH. It just needs to be a scary woman/Jew/POC with influence in the party. So what you're suggesting is removing someone who is actually effective at what they do without any particular upside. It's strange, since this is a baseball site for people who really like analytics, but one of the tenet's of analysis is that just because something is difficult to measure, or has yet to really be measured, does not mean it's immeasurable or intangible. By all accounts, she's very good at being speaker, and that really means something. Just because it may not show up in an opinion poll of people who don't really understand the inner workings of Congress doesn't mean it's not important. Personally, I'd be willing to argue that she's going to have no impact on any race in which she's not running, but if that's a bridge too far, I'd gladly change it to "she will have no more or less impact on any race in which she's not running when compared to the next most demonizable Democrat". That being the case, I see keep her in a job that she's really good at (if she wants it and the caucus agrees).
   1374. PreservedFish Posted: September 10, 2018 at 04:55 PM (#5741756)
I didn't say she should be removed - PepTech did. I have no opinion on that, and none on her job performance. I'm just disagreeing with the idea that it couldn't possibly have a good effect to retire a politician that is absolutely reviled by a huge swath of the nation. That doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

Obama, Kerry, Bill, Hillary were all demonized by the opposition. Did they all galvanize Republican support equally?

Now of course the Dem Leader is not nearly as important, but it seems to me that on a board where people go apeshit about special elections for the Iowa state senate or whatever, it's not crazy to suggest that Pelosi might have some effect on nationwide opinions regarding Dem performance and potential.
   1375. Shredder Posted: September 10, 2018 at 04:59 PM (#5741758)
If it were a new and different name, at least *some* people, hopefully, would think before agreeing.
But it wouldn't be a new name. It would be a name that everyone is familiar with, and most of the Republican base already hates. I mean, it may be a new speaker, but Ted Kennedy was the embodiment of Democratic evil for years, and he was never in a position higher than majority whip, and most people couldn't even tell you what a majority whip does. Democrats criticized the Republicans as the party of Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond, and neither of them ever had a major leadership role (though Thurmond was President Pro Tempore for like six months). Hell, Pat Buchanan has been held up as representative of the Republican party and he's never held elective office. Don't get hung up on her position.
Obama, Kerry, Bill, Hillary were all demonized by the opposition. Did they all galvanize Republican support equally?
My guess is that they all had a much larger impact on house and senate elections at various times than Nancy Pelosi. But I think that just proves the point. We're in a mid-term with a Republican President and Republican houses of Congress. Someone has to be the face of evil. Each of those people were at one time or another.
   1376. PepTech, the Legendary Posted: September 10, 2018 at 05:02 PM (#5741761)
I didn't say she should be removed - PepTech did
I did?

Well, I said "go away", but more in the context of "I'll be here until Trump is gone come hell or high water". I think that's extremist, and that there are plenty of scenarios where her stepping down aids the efforts to lose Trump. I didn't suggest she get coup'ed or anything.
Personally, I'd be willing to argue that she's going to have no impact on any race in which she's not running, but if that's a bridge too far, I'd gladly change it to "she will have no more or less impact on any race in which she's not running when compared to the next most demonizable Democrat". That being the case, I see keep her in a job that she's really good at (if she wants it and the caucus agrees).
I'd agree with this, on a race-by-race basis, which is all that really matters in 2018. I'm thinking more for 2020.
   1377. Chicago Joe Posted: September 10, 2018 at 05:02 PM (#5741762)
Thought question: least offensive (to Republicans) Democratic house speaker?

Senate majority leader, I’d go with favorite son Dick Durbin.
   1378. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 10, 2018 at 05:05 PM (#5741764)
Then again, the site was more fun before you lost your ####, forced the nuking of a thread, and gave us our more boring, more balkanized and less-trafficked BBTF.

Dan just wants everyone to pay more attention to his Really Cool Scientifically Tested Projection Stats. He doesn't like it when nobody does.
   1379. Shredder Posted: September 10, 2018 at 05:06 PM (#5741765)
Thought question: least offensive (to Republicans) Democratic house speaker?
Rush Limbaugh (I mean, technically the speaker doesn't have to be serving in the House).
   1380. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: September 10, 2018 at 05:06 PM (#5741766)
Thought question: least offensive (to Republicans) Democratic house speaker?

It'd be a House version of Joe Lieberman.
   1381. Chicago Joe Posted: September 10, 2018 at 05:07 PM (#5741767)
Dan just wants everyone to pay more attention to his Really Cool Scientifically Tested Projection Stats. He doesn't like it when nobody does.


Sabermetrics was kind of the raison d’etre for the site to begin with. And he did get a job from it, so, success!
   1382. Chicago Joe Posted: September 10, 2018 at 05:08 PM (#5741768)
( I mean, technically the speaker doesn't have to be serving in the House).


Is this true? ETA: I guess so. Did not know that.
   1383. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 10, 2018 at 05:09 PM (#5741771)
Bitter Mouse's #1313 (uh-oh, is that doubly unlucky?) seems to have set off a wave of devotional posts praising Pelosi. Been a while since anyone got that type of loyalty from Team Blue here - have to go way back to 2016, when everyone was in Hillary's corner, counting the chromosomes, and prematurely celebrating her victory. So, that means if the Democrats don't win the House this year, you're throwing Pelosi under the bus, too, right?
   1384. DJS, the Digital Dandy Posted: September 10, 2018 at 05:09 PM (#5741772)

Then again, the site was more fun before you lost your ####, forced the nuking of a thread, and gave us our more boring, more balkanized and less-trafficked BBTF.


Ha, you think *that* was what killed the traffic? We lost 40% during the politics-wars. And people shied away from contributing because of the atmosphere Jolly and his ilk caused, including one contributor who was uncomfortable with the anti-religous bigotry displayed. I had many people in the industry tell me they stopped following the site when it became less about baseball.

But no, sure, the site's traffic was driven by the ego of 15-or-so posters that think their utterly brilliant postings, hijacking baseball threads with their personal politics and brigading off anyone they didn't like, was *really* the main attraction.

I disagree vehemently with like 90% of SBB's posts, but you know what I like about him? You guys can't bully him away and it makes you SO mad that the schtick a bunch of you pulled to kill this site doesn't work with him (or Ray for that matter).
   1385. Chicago Joe Posted: September 10, 2018 at 05:13 PM (#5741775)
Ha, you think *that* was what killed the traffic? We lost 40% during the politics-wars. And people shied away from contributing because of the atmosphere Jolly and his ilk caused, including one contributor who was uncomfortable with the anti-religous bigotry displayed.



There were probably a lot of factors (including competition) but yeah, I think it didn’t help. Took away a lot of the vitality of the place.
   1386. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 10, 2018 at 05:13 PM (#5741776)
The new Leader would not, overnight, win a 24% approval rating.

The Republican "base" is not the only voting bloc.

It takes time for the opposition propaganda arm to sell its next bogeyman, and it takes time for the newfound revulsion to transfer from the Limbaugh listeners to the less politically active, and to the swing voters.

The idea that all Democrats would necessarily have an identical effect is just bizarre.


You are missing the point. The Republicans don't get to decide who the Democratic leader of the House is. Democrats do. I know that sounds simplistic, but the Democrats in the House want Nancy Pelosi in the leadership position she is in, and when they want someone else, then through the magic of voting they will get someone else.

And the Democrats in the House know better than anyone here what Nancy Pelosi brings to the table, positive and negative. The random and ill thought out opinions of some dudes on the internet (feel free to include me on that list) don't matter in the slightest.

And yes, some who are running for office have sworn to not support Pelosi. As I have said before that is fine by me. I am not married to the woman, don't even know her and will likely never meet her. But based on her body of work she has been a tremendous asset to the Democratic Party and I have no problem with her leading the Democrats in the House for as long as they and she want that.

Pretending she is an anchor on the Democrats, that she is somehow responsible for hundreds (thousands?) of election losses, or is a terrible tactician or strategist is just silly.
   1387. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 10, 2018 at 05:14 PM (#5741777)
Is this true?

Yes, but as a practical matter, there's no chance of the House electing a non-Member as Speaker. There's never even been a serious effort to do so. It's something of a parlour game to imagine potential Speakers from outside the House.
   1388. PepTech, the Legendary Posted: September 10, 2018 at 05:14 PM (#5741779)
Bitter Mouse's #1313 (uh-oh, is that doubly unlucky?) seems to have set off a wave of devotional posts praising Pelosi.
Do you only read every other post?

It's a serious question. There's been a lively debate both for and against Pelosi. You're ignoring half the posts, or trolling. Or both.
   1389. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: September 10, 2018 at 05:19 PM (#5741780)
Bitter Mouse's #1313 (uh-oh, is that doubly unlucky?) seems to have set off a wave of devotional posts praising Pelosi. Been a while since anyone got that type of loyalty from Team Blue here - have to go way back to 2016, when everyone was in Hillary's corner, counting the chromosomes, and prematurely celebrating her victory. So, that means if the Democrats don't win the House this year, you're throwing Pelosi under the bus, too, right?


Kind of a weird post, dude. For the record I don't think the Democrats here threw Hillary under the bus. I know you don't understand responsibility, to say nothing of consequences for politicians in your party, but Hillary lost an election she (I believe) should have won.

There are reasons she lost, many of them, but I the final analysis it was her campaign and her responsibility that she lost. So most Democrats here and elsewhere have no problem with pointing that out.

Most of us here also hope this will be an example, an opportunity for dialogue and enlightenment, as Republicans see that politicians should be held accountable for their actions and not just given a free pass because of their laundry. I can dream anyway.
   1390. Shredder Posted: September 10, 2018 at 05:20 PM (#5741781)
You're ignoring half the posts, or trolling. Or both.
He's ignoring half of them, and deliberately misinterpreting the other half. Or maybe he's just an idiot and he actually believes what he wrote.
So, that means if the Democrats don't win the House this year, you're throwing Pelosi under the bus, too, right?
If the Democrats lose the House by one seat, and Pelosi loses her election, I'll be the first to blame her for the Democrats not winning the House.
   1391. PreservedFish Posted: September 10, 2018 at 05:20 PM (#5741782)
You are missing the point.


I'm not missing that point, I'm just ignoring it, because I don't care about it or have an opinion on it. Pelosi may well still be the best man for the job. I'm just arguing the one thing I've been arguing, which is that it is reductive and obviously incorrect to say that the Dems could put absolutely anyone in the job and they'd all have equivalent "galvanizing effects." That's just dumb.
   1392. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 10, 2018 at 05:21 PM (#5741783)
Question for the New Year: Does Andy (a) not know what white nationalism is, or (b) not know what the word "express" means?

Question for anyone: Does David (a) think there's any substantive difference between white nationalism and the xenophobic/Eurocentric/racebaiting/Muslimbaiting sort of garbage that the speakers at those Restoration Weekend are promoting, or (b) not know what Steve Bannon, Milo Yiannopoulos and Sebastian Gorka represent? (HINT: It's nothing that any self-respecting New Year's celebrant would want to defend.)
So Andy is going with (c) both of the above; he doesn't know what either means. Hint: the word "express" does not mean "probable" or "obvious" or "substantively similar." It means -- literally -- that it was stated rather than implied. Can you find anyone, anywhere, saying, "The purpose of this conference is to promote white nationalism"? If not, then it was definitionally not the express purpose. Was it the implied purpose? Doesn't seem to be. Not sure that there was a singular purpose at all, but the general theme of many of these speakers seems to be "Islam sucks," which would actually be substantively different than white nationalism, yes.

Keep in mind that Andy has shown no evidence whatsoever -- none -- that he has any idea what any of these conferences was. All he knows is that he read a story in the Washington Post and that's all he needs to know. (Of course, Andy doesn't even know what he reads; nothing in the article says what the express purpose of the conferences was.) You don't have to like Horowitz or the speakers to avoid making stuff up as Andy does.
   1393. Ray (CTL) Posted: September 10, 2018 at 05:22 PM (#5741787)
When did Sharpton's racist phase end? What prior behavior did he renounce or apologize for? Are you sure you don't mean Sharpton has become so prominent in the Democratic Party that it now embarrasses you to note his racism?

I've denounced Sharpton racist actions regarding the Brawley hoax and the Korean merchants boycott many times, but those incidents took place decades ago, and there's nothing racist in his record since then.


The Trump housing thing that you can't stop talking about "took place decades ago."

It's all whimsy with you.

But I'm intrigued by the "nothing racist in his record since then" element of the defense. To which Republicans or conservatives that you've deemed racist have you made this defense for?
   1394. McCoy Posted: September 10, 2018 at 05:23 PM (#5741788)
Well, the need for a baseball clearing House kind of died out which caused posters here to focus on other things.

This site was always accidental way station for sabermetric discussion and since the host and leaders of this site did little to foster that discussion it died down when sabermetrics advanced and went in-house.

The politics crap has been here from the start and been a major part of the discussion here. Not Jim would tell you that the discussion part of this site was always the least trafficed part of the site.
   1395. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: September 10, 2018 at 05:25 PM (#5741789)
All Cops Are Bastards
@BradHeath
9th Cir.: No, the police can't arrest a whole bunch of 7th grade girls without evidence of a crime to "prove a point."

9th Cir.: "The arrest of a middle schooler ... cannot be justified as a scare tactic, a lesson in maturity, or a chastisement for perceived disrespect."

9th Cir.: A group of middle school girls being "disrespectful" and "whispering among themselves" does not constitute probable cause that they have committed a crime.
   1396. Shredder Posted: September 10, 2018 at 05:26 PM (#5741790)
'm just arguing the one thing I've been arguing, which is that it is reductive and obviously incorrect to say that the Dems could put absolutely anyone in the job and they'd all have equivalent "galvanizing effects." That's just dumb.
But no one is saying this, or at least I'm not. Removing her from the position of speaker doesn't do anything. She would remain the emodiment of Democratic evil, or someone else would fill her place.
   1397. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: September 10, 2018 at 05:27 PM (#5741791)
Pelosi is part of the Dems' image problem: too old, too entrenched, and too neo-liberal.


The Majority/Minority leader's job is to be a lightning rod, and I guarantee that anyone you put into that job in Pelosi's place will have approval ratings down in the 30s or worse within the next year. The American people hate Congressional leadership because nothing gets done, but they mostly don't pay enough attention to accurately target their blame toward the specific parties at fault.

Also, if you don't like neoliberals, you should note that every leadership challenge to Pelosi within the last ten years has been from the right, not the left. There's a pretty decent chance that if you push her out, her successor will end up being from the corporatist wing of the party, like Tim Ryan or Kathleen Rice.

One of her best skills as speaker is knowing how to count votes.


Yep. She's excellent at whipping votes and gauging support, which is the single most important quality a Majority or Minority Leader can have. See, for example, the fiasco at the start of the current Republican majority when they tried to repeal the ACA. She held the caucus together, the Repubs got cold feet about trying to pass it unilaterally, and the effort collapsed.
   1398. Davo and his Moose Tacos Posted: September 10, 2018 at 05:28 PM (#5741792)
Who are the anti-religious bigots on OTP?
   1399. bobm Posted: September 10, 2018 at 05:28 PM (#5741793)
[1361]I like the whole "who expanded" part. Not who started it. A very fine whatboutism even though the original point was asking about what would all the people who attacked Obama say now that Trump is doing it. Apparently the answer is what about Obama.

I continue to oppose state-sponsored assassination by drone. It is not what this country and its leaders should be doing.

Trump is apparently expanding it off his predecessor's smaller base and Obama did so by a factor of 4 in his first year in office, but that's not the impression one gets from "curtailed." He curtailed his own increased drone use, not Bush's. At least Obama tried to stuff the toothpaste back into the tube, but that's an impossible task because the lure of the drone is apparently irresistible.
   1400. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: September 10, 2018 at 05:29 PM (#5741796)
Libertarians put no stock in the feelings of others, are almost wholly lacking in empathy, and consider that the only relevant metric is what is good for them.
Nope. None of that is right. In fact, libertarians care so much about the feelings of others that we don't want to impose our wills on them.
Page 14 of 15 pages ‹ First  < 12 13 14 15 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Sheer Tim Foli
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogAddison Russell’s Ex-Wife Releases Detailed Allegations Of Abuse
(38 - 7:23pm, Sep 21)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogIt's not the full moon that excites OMNICHATTER! for Sept. 21, 2018
(22 - 7:18pm, Sep 21)
Last: Moses Taylor, aka Hambone Fakenameington

NewsblogOTP 2018 September 17: How Brett Kavanaugh explains his baseball ticket debt
(1855 - 7:17pm, Sep 21)
Last: David Nieporent (now, with children)

Gonfalon CubsThe Final Push
(155 - 7:08pm, Sep 21)
Last: Andere Richtingen

NewsblogJoe Maddon is angry with MLB over Cubs weather-impacted schedule
(61 - 6:58pm, Sep 21)
Last: A triple short of the cycle

NewsblogOT - 2018 NBA Thread (Pre-Season Edition)
(501 - 6:29pm, Sep 21)
Last: If on a winter's night a baserunner

NewsblogHall of Famer John Smoltz says MLB needs an overhaul and proposes drastic changes
(66 - 6:15pm, Sep 21)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 9-21-2018
(20 - 5:33pm, Sep 21)
Last: Sweatpants

NewsblogJeff Banister fired as Texas Rangers manager
(3 - 5:20pm, Sep 21)
Last: Random Transaction Generator

NewsblogRed Sox Fan Dies Climbing On Top of Train Leaving Yankee Stadium
(14 - 5:19pm, Sep 21)
Last: Bote Man the walk-off king

NewsblogCain stars in Directional Outs Above Average
(15 - 5:16pm, Sep 21)
Last: Batman

NewsblogSimon - Why Does Bryce Harper Have -25 Defensive Runs Saved?
(7 - 4:27pm, Sep 21)
Last: Dale Sams

NewsblogOT: Soccer Thread (2018-19 season begins!)
(820 - 3:57pm, Sep 21)
Last: I am going to be Frank

NewsblogMarlins CEO Derek Jeter: Don Mattingly 'under contract' for 2019
(11 - 3:11pm, Sep 21)
Last: BrianBrianson

NewsblogRed Sox division title banner falls off truck; its return may cost them - The Boston Globe
(33 - 1:40pm, Sep 21)
Last: villageidiom

Page rendered in 0.7179 seconds
46 querie(s) executed